Notwithstanding lawyer and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett’s hysterical musings to the contrary.
As Jarrett correctly quoted, but mischaracterized, then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford’s (R, MI) remark on impeachment,
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.
Jarrett is right that this isn’t what the Constitution’s authors intended, but it’s what they wrote, and it’s what our Constitution has said ever since. High Crimes and Misdemeanors were completely undefined by them and by any ratification since.
The Progressive-Democrat caucus in the House is bound and determined to get rid of a President whom they consider to have stolen their personal property—the 2016 Presidential election—and so to prevent him from continuing to squat on their property after the 2020 Presidential election. In the course of their effort, they are, indeed, denigrating the meaning of every word in that phrase, including the “and.”
They’re after charging President Donald Trump with the heinous behavior of asking the President of a foreign nation to look into the possibility of corruption in his own nation and the possibility of a role that corruption may have played in our 2016 election. The impeachers insist that President Donald Trump demanded a quid pro quo, withholding military aid funding, against that President complying with the request. Never mind that the Ukrainian President, Volodomyr Zelenskiy, has said on multiple occasions that he was not pressured at all, or that Ukraine’s Foreign Minister has said Ukraine didn’t even know any funds for military aid had been held up until a month after that telecon.
They’re after, also, charging Trump with the heinous crime of asking the same foreign nation to look into the possibility that a Progressive-Democrat, in his capacity as Vice President, might have extorted that same nation into stopping a corruption investigation into a business on whose board of directors that Vice President’s son sat and firing the Prosecutor General leading it. That look-into involved a request for help from that nation because the activity occurred in that nation. Never mind, here, that the impeachers insist that the subject of this requested look must be above investigation because he is a Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for President, not because he might be innocent.
An impeachment is nothing more than a grand jury indictment, and as is well known across a broad range of venues, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he sees fit. The foolishness of this impeachment effort; the dishonesty underlying it; the plain, naked politics of the Progressive-Democrats’ effort to preempt the upcoming Presidential election with it—all are palpable and lay bare the nature of it.
Yes, Trump did commit impeachable offenses, as Progressive-Democrats in the House define the terms, and when they do get their impeachment done, they will be exposed for the irrational politicians they are, and for persons bent on their own political gain at the expense of their constituents’ interests and instructions.
Unfortunately, Jarrett’s name-calling and snark-ridden op-ed lends neither the Conservative cause in general nor the Trump matter in particular any credibility at all.